Standing Committee A

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill

Clause 1 - Exclusion of candidate selection from 1975 act

Amendment proposed [6 November]: No. 2, in page 2, line 3, at end insert— 
`(f) elections to the Greater London Assembly; 
 (g) elections to any body which may replace those listed in this subsection.'—[Mrs. May.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
`(h) any elections to the House of Lords; 
 (i) any elections to any regional assemblies in England.'.
 No. 8, in page 2, line 28, at end insert— 
``(e) elections to any body replaying or succeeding bodies referred to in paragraphs (b) and (d) above.'.

Theresa May: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is my first opportunity to work under what I am sure will be your fair but firm hand.
 We had a lengthy debate on Tuesday about amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 8. We debated the extent to which it was necessary to specify in the Bill other elected bodies to which the provisions should apply, and to make provision for bodies that replace or are created in addition to those in the Bill. In response, the Minister for Local Government said that we need not worry about future bodies because the Government would ensure that the Bill applied to them. 
 On amendment No. 3, we had slight difficulties about elections to the House of Lords because the Minister was speaking about the then forthcoming White Paper, which was issued yesterday. Having seen it, I understand why he was reluctant to talk about such elections—it requires a telescope to see those provisions. That takes nothing away from the argument that we should ensure that the Bill applies to other elected bodies. The Government cannot get away with saying that they have introduced the Bill to cover elected bodies, because they or succeeding Governments might later omit to ensure that new bodies are covered.

Andrew Lansley: Paragraph 35 of the White Paper on the composition of the House of Lords refers to the desirability of representativeness embracing gender, faith and ethnicity. My hon. Friend might, however, be as interested as I am in paragraph 66, which deals with the requirement for the appointments commission to secure the appointment of women. Two points arise from that. First, the White Paper mentions legislation providing for representativeness in appointments to the House of Lords, but not in elections to it, as intended in the Bill. Secondly, it is curious that the White Paper suggests that 30 per cent. of new appointments should be women and 30 per cent. should be men and that we should move towards gender balance over time. Given the imbalance at the moment, the House of Lords will never reach anything approaching gender balance if only 30 per cent. of new appointments are women.

Theresa May: While my hon. Friend was reading those figures, I began to wonder what on earth the other 40 per cent. would be if 30 per cent. were women and 30 per cent. were men.

Andrew Lansley: I love Departments' drafting skills and have occasionally displayed them myself. I understand the desirability of being even handed. I also recognise that a figure of at least 50 per cent. would have been difficult to achieve because the total would have been more than 100 per cent., so the figures were rounded down equally on both sides. None the less, the result is nonsense.

Theresa May: Had the White Paper not come from a different Department, I would be tempted to say that the mathematics of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions were behind it.
 My hon. Friend is right. In yesterday's press coverage of the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, the point was made that the Government were concerned with gender balance among elected representatives to the reformed Chamber but they have not followed that through to the appointed representatives. That point ties in with an intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made when I spoke to these amendments on Tuesday. She asked whether I thought the Prime Minister was as committed to the achievement of a gender balance as the introduction of the Bill would suggest, and wondered whether he would ensure that his appointments reflected that balance. It would appear from the White Paper that the Government are not as committed on those appointments, and that Tony simply wants to ensure that he has his cronies the other place, regardless of gender balance. 
 We need to ensure that the provisions in the Bill, which enable positive action to be taken to achieve a greater gender balance in elected bodies, apply to other bodies, whether they replace existing bodies or are newly created. Amendment No. 3 refers not only to the House of Lords but to regional assemblies. I have made it clear that we do not share the Government's support for regional assemblies, but those assemblies should be included in the Bill if the Government are so committed to them. 
 I listened carefully to the Minister's comments on amendment No. 2. He said that elections to the Greater London Assembly were implicitly covered by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which amended the Representation of the People Act 1983. I would have preferred that body to be specified in the Bill, as that would have represented a commitment from the Government.

Nick Raynsford: Before I remind the hon. Lady of something, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. This may not be the longest-running Committee over which you will preside, but I hope that at least it is enjoyable.
 I remind the hon. Lady that I did not say that the Greater London Assembly was implicitly covered, but that the Greater London Authority Act 1999 explicitly included the Greater London Authority within the definition of local government, which guarantees that it is covered by the Bill. I also made it clear that a similar procedure would be appropriate in respect of all future bodies. That is the correct constitutional procedure, so I hope that she will not use it as a device to justify pressing a defective amendment.

Theresa May: If the Government shared the point of principle that lay behind the amendment but thought that the wording was faulty, they should have tabled an alternative amendment.

Nick Raynsford: I remind the hon. Lady of my final remarks in our last sitting, when I said that I had
``made it clear that we wholly supported the hon. Lady's objective in wanting the principles to apply, and that it was only the mechanism, not the principle, on which we disagreed.''——[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 40.] 
I hope that that clarifies the point, and that she recognises that we are wholly committed to the principle that she has advocated.

Theresa May: I say again to the Minister that if he is as committed to the principle as he says, he should give us greater support than he has shown so far by putting it into practice. The Committee is not the final stage of the Bill. If an amendment were passed today that the Government felt was inappropriate, they would be able to return to it later.
 The reference to the Greater London Assembly is important because existing bodies should be referred to in the Bill. I hear the Minister's comments on the constitutional arguments about the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Representation of the People Act 1983. I assume that if the Government establish regional assemblies they will describe them as local rather than regional government.

Cheryl Gillan: I was impressed by the Minister's interventions on my hon. Friend. Perhaps the Minister is suggesting that, rather than trying to avoid voting, should we press amendment No. 2 to a vote, Members on the Government Benches will vote with us.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister's certainty that Members on the Government Benches support the principle of the amendment suggests that, should it come to a vote, they will be willing to join us.
 We have had a lengthy debate on the amendments. I am disappointed that the Greater London Assembly is not referred to in the Bill, and that the Government have not shown a willingness to move on the issue. An indication in the Bill of future intention would guarantee that future elected bodies such as should be covered by the Bill were covered. That would be better than allowing the matter to be decided when a Government—of whichever complexion—established such bodies. In that light, I should like to press amendment No. 2 to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 7

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Tyler: This is an appropriate moment to mention the concerns of Liberal Democrats about the new burdens that will be placed on political parties as a result of the legislation. I believe that those concerns are shared by other hon. Members.
 On Tuesday, the Minister, on a number of occasions, used some interesting qualifying words about the way in which the legislation is to be imposed on the political parties. Perhaps the secret is that it will not be imposed—it is permissive. Its permissive nature enabled the Minister to state a number of times what he thought will happen ``in the Government's view'', whereas at other times he made the point that the political parties will have to take legal advice. I do not have any legal qualifications or experience, which is why I have a modest income. I know that lawyers are not cheap. That is especially true when it comes to complicated issues of human rights, to which much reference was made in our sitting on Tuesday and on Second Reading. 
 Having taken advice from my legal friends—free, I must stress, as we are impecunious—I know that it is the opinion of many lawyers that this issue will be a legal minefield. The permissive nature of the Bill will not reduce the burden on political parties; it will increase it. Its provisions will be open to legal challenge at various levels, including under European legislation made in compliance with the equal treatment directive.

Joan Ruddock: What leads the hon. Gentleman to believe that such challenges—I speak of challenges rather than of people's views—are inevitable? No European country that has adopted similar rules has suffered a successful challenge to the legislation that he cites.

Paul Tyler: I am usually an optimist, otherwise I would not be a Liberal Democrat, but on this occasion I believe that the hon. Lady is being over-optimistic. The so-called zipping arrangements that my party put in place for the European elections resulted in legal exchanges, which were extremely expensive, even though they never reached the courts. The expense and difficulty of obtaining legal advice was such that we ended up going to a very well-respected—indeed, the foremost—lawyer. She is not unknown to the Prime Minister; and she is not cheap.

Joan Ruddock: Surely, the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Bill is designed to overcome such problems.

Paul Tyler: I would be delighted to continue this duet with the hon. Lady, for whom I have great respect. I agree that the Bill is designed to do that, but the qualifications that the Secretary of State, the Minister and others have made on the Government's position suggest that it will not be plain sailing.

Stephen Hesford: Is not the hon. Gentleman making a party point under the cover of seeking legal advice? I do not doubt that legal advice was taken, but are not the Liberal Democrats getting their retaliation in first because they know that they have a problem with all-women shortlists as a result of a conference decision?

Paul Tyler: Far from it. As I explained on Second Reading, it is likely that the Labour party will be first in the dock. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall say in a moment why it is appropriate for this Committee and this Parliament to take a view about the provision of legal advice.
 My Liberal Democrat colleagues and the party generally did not want to pre-empt the legislation; we wanted to see whether progress could be made before the legislation came into being. However, it is likely that my party will have to find some way of making the maximum use of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) takes that view, as does our parliamentary party, but the Labour party is most likely to be first in that position and it is only right and proper that we should examine the issue carefully. 
 The regulatory appraisal made no reference to obligations and expenses imposed by the Bill on political parties. There is no guarantee that the Bill will prevent the eruption of yet more attempts to litigate or to claim that discrimination is taking place. In those circumstances, there is a precedent for the Government at least being prepared to provide legal advice to the parties. The precedent is simple. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 made specific provision: if Parliament legislated to impose new burdens on political parties, it would be appropriate for the Government to take some responsibility for the cost of taking legal advice. 
 That is a useful precedent. It is much better that the Government should be prepared to live with their legislation rather than using the weasel words that we heard last Tuesday, such as ``in our view'' and ``the political parties will have to take advice''. The Government should live up to their obligations and be prepared to provide suitable legal support for all the political parties on a consistent basis. In the precedent provided by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which implemented the Neill recommendations on the registration and regulation of funding, the Act had a specific regulatory impact on the political parties. This situation is similar and I hope that the Minister will at least be able to give some assurance that the Government will be prepared to re-examine the matter between now and the passage of the Bill through the other place.

Theresa May: As I said at the beginning of our discussions and on Second Reading, we support the Bill in principle. We have tried, through amendments, to improve it, but we agree with its basic principle. Its aim is to ensure that we get a better balance of representation in the House and in other elected bodies. It is designed to ensure that women get a fair crack of the whip—a chance to get elected. In all political parties, there are good women whose talents would add to the strength of Parliament. Such women find themselves, through no fault of their own—there are no problems with their abilities or talents—but because of the way in which the processes operate, not being selected and therefore not being given the opportunity to be elected as Members of Parliament. To remind the Committee, only 18 per cent. of Members of Parliament are women. The figures are much higher in other Parliaments, ranging from nearly 43 per cent. in Sweden to 25 per cent. in Namibia. Namibia is the 20th highest in the list of Parliaments in terms of the representation of women.
 I referred to the Equal Opportunities Commission MORI poll earlier. It found that three in 10 of the parliamentary candidates who were polled were aware of prejudice or sex discrimination at some stage during a selection process. Having examined the results of the poll, the Equal Opportunities Commission made it clear that it was important that a Bill was introduced to enable political parties to take the positive action that is necessary. The crux of the Bill is in clause 1, which contains the provision for political parties to take positive action. As the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission said, 
 ``This Bill will be decisive in enabling the political parties to increase the number of women MPs—an ambition they all share. Research . . . has shown that use of positive action measures is the single most significant factor in increasing women's representation.'' 
We have had a debate about the sort of positive action measures that the Bill would enable political parties to take. I am sure that there will be a difference in practice and approach. 
 I share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). There are still questions about the Bill's legal aspects. It was telling, in our debate on amendments to the clause, that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Alan Whitehead) took great pains to point out that political parties would have to take legal advice. In other words, a political party cannot simply rely on the Bill and take positive action purely because it has been enacted. Parties will have to take legal advice about the nature of the positive action that they take. 
 I associate myself with the comment made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, because, like him, I suspect that, if any political party is going to find the positive action it takes subject to legal challenge, it will be the Labour party if it goes down the route of all-women shortlists. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has made the point on several occasions that experience elsewhere suggests that that will not happen. However, that is not to say that it will not happen in the circumstances we are considering. The Labour party might have difficulty over the key issue on which the Minister was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—proportionality. Would all-women shortlists be proportionate to the problem? Some issues remain to be dealt with from, dare I mention it, our debate about the impact of European legislation, and they may be teased out later in the Bill's passage. 
 Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill; clause 2 repeats its provisions for Northern Ireland. Clause 1 would enable political parties to encourage women and to do what is necessary to ensure that more are elected. It is important to note that not only institutions such as the Equal Opportunities Commission—which is chaired by Julie Mellor, whom I quoted in my remarks—support that aim. It is supported by the Fawcett Society, whose history is of trying to ensure better representation of women, particularly in Parliament. I believe that other members of the Committee have received a letter from Soroptimist International. I mention it because it shows that interest in getting women elected and in ensuring that they are part of the decision-making process goes wider than those groups that might naturally be assumed to support those aims. 
 The Soroptimists are clear about their view. They urge Governments to offer support services and guidance to women on affirmative action, and also refer to the implementation of the platform for action that was adopted at the Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham was one of the United Kingdom's representatives there.

Cheryl Gillan: I was the Minister who signed the document.

Theresa May: I apologise for demoting my hon. Friend and congratulate her on being the Minister who signed the document.
 As the Soroptimists point out, two of the 12 critical areas of concern from that platform of action are particularly relevant: first, the inequality between men and women and sharing power and decision making at all levels; and, secondly, the insufficient mechanisms at all levels to promote the advancement of women. The Bill goes some way to redressing those problems, with respect to elected bodies, by providing for political parties to take the necessary positive action to encourage women—and to show a face to women that says, ``We actively want women to be selected and elected.'' The parties will take different approaches to that. My party believes that the number of women in Parliament can be increased without all-women shortlists. Other methods can achieve it. 
 I am disappointed that the Minister has, while perhaps agreeing with us in principle, not accepted some of our amendments, which were aimed at making the Bill practical and not open to legal challenge of the sort that some of us fear. Nevertheless, we support the principle and aims of clause 1.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) pointed out, clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. It inserts at the beginning of part V of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 an exemption for positive measures designed to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected to certain bodies. It exempts them from the general prohibition in the Act against discrimination on grounds of sex. As the 1975 Act does not extend to Northern Ireland, the clause relates to Great Britain only, which is why clause 2 is necessary for Northern Ireland.
 The clause is permissive and designed to give political parties as much flexibility as possible. An important principle is that it is not the Government's role to regulate the internal workings of political parties.

Mark Hoban: I thank the Minister for the assurance that the Government do not intend to intervene in the workings of political parties, but is he aware that the Leader of the House said yesterday that the minimum 30 per cent. of male and female appointments should apply to future party nominations? Does that not run against the permissiveness to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks?

Nick Raynsford: No. The hon. Gentleman is confused in the same way in which Opposition Members are confused about the Bill; he has confused appointments with elections. I have made it clear that the Bill relates only to the process of election and how political parties bring forward candidates for election. The principle applies in that respect.
 When it would be more in order, I would be more than happy to debate the appropriate arrangements for the reform of the House of Lords. I pause to remark on the fact that, for not only decades but centuries, the Conservative party happily acquiesced to a framework in which an unreformed House of Lords gave it an in-built majority. I hope that it will willingly embrace a framework that will ensure more balanced representation in the upper House in future.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead was, in effect, winding up the debate on her previous amendment, so the Minister has not had an opportunity to assure the Committee that, in legislation on House of Lords reform, the Government explicitly intend to provide for the application of the Bill to future elections in the House of Lords.

Nick Raynsford: In respect of elections, I gave that assurance in Committee on Tuesday and I am happy to repeat that we intend to apply the principle in the Bill to all future bodies that come into existence and are elected. Of course, I have already made a distinction between election and appointment, but we certainly intend to apply the same principle to elected bodies.
 I owe the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire an apology, because he made an intervention on Tuesday to which I did not respond. It was about the role of elected mayors in London or any other local authority area where a directly elected mayor was returned as the executive. The nature of the post makes it impossible to achieve gender balance, as only one person fulfils the executive role. Our focus is on outcomes rather than process, as we debated to some extent on Tuesday, and therefore it will not be possible to impose a similar obligation of greater gender balance in the election of a directly elected mayor. There will never be a gender balance in the outcome; the mayor will be either male or female. That is logical.

Andrew Lansley: The logic of that is inescapable. The difficulty, which relates to a point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, is that by the same logic, Members of Parliament in the House of Commons occupy the single post of representing a single constituency. By definition, one cannot achieve gender balance in that role. That is the distinction between what happens in this country and on the continent, where proportionality and balance are often achieved by electing Members of Parliament as a body rather than for single constituencies.

Nick Raynsford: I counsel the hon. Gentleman not to take his argument too far, as he may stray into territory that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will rapidly seize on as an argument in favour of a proportionate electoral system.

Paul Tyler: The Minister will be delighted to hear that I shall not go down that track. Has he taken full account of paragraph 41 of the White Paper on the reform of the House of Lords? It suggests the possibility of some indirectly elected Members from the various national and regional assemblies of the United Kingdom alongside the directly elected Members. I made a point about that yesterday, as did the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). There is a strong view that that might make the second Chamber more democratic. How would the Government ensure gender balance in indirect elections to the House of Lords?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which we shall address in our White Paper on regional government early next year. I made it clear at our previous sitting--I do so again today--that we intend the principles in the Bill to apply to elected regional assemblies. We are laying the basis for gender balance in such assemblies and if there is indirect representation in the House of Lords from them, it will be easier to ensure the objective to which the hon. Gentleman is committed. I give him an undertaking that we shall examine the matter in more detail and cover the relevant issues in our White Paper on regional government.
 The hon. Gentleman claimed that the Bill imposes burdens on political parties. It does not. It is permissive, and provides an opportunity for political parties that we believe that they will want to seize. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Maidenhead, who speaks for the Conservatives on such matters, say that they want to seize the opportunity. They certainly need to do so to redress the imbalance in their representation in the House and we hope that the Bill will facilitate that process. There is no additional burden, so the doctrine that the hon. Lady cited--that when legislation imposes new burdens it is appropriate for the Government to underwrite legal costs--does not apply. 
 The hon. Member for North Cornwall prayed in aid the Neill report, which states in chapter 7: 
 ``Our support for public funding for one purpose is by no means an indicator of our support for public funding for other purposes.'' 
That is a very clear statement.

Paul Tyler: Does not the Minister recognise that we have a sacrosanct duty to try to produce legislation that is not open to challenge? It should be as impregnable as possible. At our previous sitting and again today, he accepted that political parties will require legal advice and support. All of us in the Room support the Bill's objectives, but the Government would be foolish if they did not acknowledge that some will not accept them. It is already clear that there are chinks through which challenges will be made.

Nick Raynsford: The Bill addresses the problem that was clearly highlighted in the Jepson case, which created a legal challenge to the adoption of positive measures by the Labour party in the 1990s. We are addressing that problem, and the Bill provides for remedies to make it easier for political parties to introduce positive measures without risk of legal action. However, it would be a foolish Minister who did not give the advice that I have offered consistently during our proceedings. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also confirmed that we would advise political parties to take legal advice before adopting specific measures. That is prudent advice, which any Minister would offer on any similar legislation and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it in that spirit. We are rightly and properly signalling the duty on political parties to take responsibility for their actions, and the wisdom of taking advice on that. However, our measures are designed to reduce the likelihood of legal challenge and to respond to the specific problem highlighted by the Jepson case.
 That covers the issues that have been raised in the short clause stand part debate. In conclusion, I stress the importance of enforcing the Bill in good order and at an early stage so that political parties can adopt the necessary measures to achieve the outcome to which we all aspire. The legislation will be measured by the outcome, which should be a transformation of the unsatisfactory gender balance that applies not only to this place, but to other elected bodies in the country. The clause is the core of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Exclusion of candidate selection from 1976 order

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move Government amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 24, leave out `section' and insert `Article'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 10.

Alan Whitehead: The amendment seeks to correct a technical drafting error in the Bill. It has no effect on the substantive impact of new paragraphs 43A(3) and (4) in Northern Ireland. Although the effects of clauses 1 and 2 are the same, hon. Members will appreciate that orders have articles, not sections.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 10, in page 2, line 29, leave out `section' and insert `Article'.—[Dr. Whitehead.] 
 Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Expiry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Tyler: Why has the Minister selected 2015 for the so-called sunset clause? My hon. Friends and I agree that a sunset clause is helpful: in the House, it is useful to give a specific time scale to much legislation because we do not return to it regularly enough to assess its impact. I have no problem with the principle. The Bill obviously has a natural life—or, at least, we hope that it has—and we hope that sufficient progress will be made to enable it to wither on the vine. However, I wonder whether 2015 is significant—perhaps it is when the Under-Secretary gets his bus pass, or he knows that the world will end that year. Whatever the reason, I would like to understand better the time scale involved.

Joan Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman share his party's thoughts on the fact that the 50:50 split between female and male Members of Parliament, which his party might have produced, could be achieved by 2015?

Paul Tyler: The honest answer, in the secrecy of the Room, is that unless we get on with the job, we will not achieve that. I have been open at every stage—even with my party at conference—and I fear that we will not make such progress. That is why I support the Bill and believe that it will have to be used.
 We must have a sense of urgency about the Bill. Our objective is 40 per cent., and once we reach that, we will be well on the way; momentum will have been achieved. My belief, and perhaps that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, is that as more women come into this place, it becomes a more attractive place for women to come into. I think that the hon. Member for Maidenhead would agree that the mechanisms enabling women to come here will take account of that fact. All parties have hovered on the fringe of the matter for so long that we still find it difficult to make this place one that women aspire to join and in which they feel comfortable after joining. I said on Second Reading that I am disappointed that, having tasted the flavours of Westminster, quite a lot of women decide that it is not for them. We must take account of that. 
 I am not making a party political point—I am trying to ensure a real sense of urgency. As I also said on Second Reading, like Mr. Gladstone, I am an old man in a hurry. I remind the Minister, who made a crack about that on Second Reading, that Mr. Gladstone did not always win in his party: he was always ahead of, and rather more radical than his party. As he grew older, he became more radical, although the rest of his party did not necessarily do so.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on a small point about my illustrious predecessor, who was also a Member of Parliament for Greenwich. I hope that our Government will, like him, grow even more successful and radical—although his party has rather been left behind in that regard.

Paul Tyler: Several commentators have said recently that the Liberal Democrats keep the Government to their radical tradition—a point with which some Labour Members would agree.
 Time scales are extremely important. My mother will be 100 next week—it is in the blood; we Cornish are long living—and I would like to think that she will witness some progress on the issue. However, even for those with Cornish blood in their veins, there is a limit to longevity.

Ian Gibson: Resign and let your mother have the seat.

Paul Tyler: I shall ignore that suggestion as it would cause her, let alone me, some angst.
 There must be some reason for choosing 2015. Although there were one or two sedentary and other interventions on Second Reading that implied that a small minority oppose the Bill, most hon. Members, including members of the Committee, believe that it contains essential proposals. As was rightly said, it provides a framework for parties to develop their own positive measures to resolve what is commonly accepted as a problem. At this stage, I do not think that a date of 14 years hence provides the necessary sense of immediacy and urgency, and I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would explain his thinking.

Alan Whitehead: There are several ways in which we could speculate about the year 2015. Given the hon. Gentleman's comments, 2015 will be the year in which he will be so radical that he will disappear off the end of the political spectrum. It will also be the year in which I receive my bus pass and will no longer be eligible for the parliamentary football team. [Interruption.] There is heckling from a sedentary position about my qualities, which I shall ignore.
 When one includes a sunset clause, one must take a decision that is, to some extent, arbitrary about the time of sunset. Of course, by 2015 at least three elections will have taken place.

Andrew Lansley: I anticipated that the Under-Secretary would advance that argument, but it strikes me as a peculiar one. By my calculation, if this and each succeeding Parliament runs full term, we will reach August 2016.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting but fairly academic point—

Theresa May: The Under-Secretary cannot say that the point is academic—

Andrew Lansley: He is an academic.

Theresa May: Indeed. He, as an academic, made the point that the Bill will apply to three parliamentary elections, yet it is clearly possible that it will not—unless, that is, he knows something that we do not about the length of this Parliament.

Alan Whitehead: I am sorry that members of the Committee intervened on me before I had an opportunity fully to expand the detail of the argument. The hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Maidenhead are theoretically correct to say that it is possible that three elections would not have taken place by 2015. However, there is only a small chance of having successive Prime Ministers who are so concerned about calling the date of the election that they act like Mr. Major and cling on to office until the very last month that is theoretically possible—indeed, I believe that it was a month longer than that. I said that by 2015, at least three elections will have taken place, and I am confident that that will prove to be so. The alternative would be to stipulate 2015 and six months, 2015 and nine months, or whatever.
 As I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, the choice of 2015 must, to some extent, be arbitrary. In the normal course of events, if Parliaments run true to form—as did almost every Parliament during the previous century, except that which ended with the 1997 election—at least three elections will have taken place for each body in the UK between the time at which the provisions are likely to come into force and 2015. It is therefore a reasonable choice for the sunset clause, although one could argue for or against any year. A period is required for parties to put their processes into place and allow them to work through the party machinery. By the end of it, through the effluxion of time, various people will have been replaced in their posts. Thereafter, it should be possible to take an informed view on whether the provisions should continue to apply. That is the purpose of a sunset clause. 
 Clause 3 allows the provisions to remain in place if a statutory instrument following the affirmative procedure is laid before each House for approval. If the Minister who reviews the position decides that the provisions should continue to apply, he will have to justify that to Parliament. That is important, and makes the Bill focused and targeted. Although 2015 is a long way away, it provides a target for parties to work towards and an opportunity for the House to assess whether the provisions are still appropriate. 
 I hope that members of the Committee will support the clause on the basis that it is good legislation to ensure, wherever possible, that the House is able to extinguish an Act that is no longer considered important to the workings of the country. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Nick Raynsford: The Committee stage has been short but effective. At the start of our proceedings, we heard some bogus indignation from Opposition Members about the programme motion, but we have demonstrated that the time made available for the Committee was more than adequate. We have been able to consider all the issues raised by Opposition and Government Members, and have satisfied ourselves that the Bill meets a real need and will make a real difference. There has been a general spirit of agreement. While those outside the House grow accustomed to confrontational proceedings, we have experienced the benefits of constructive scrutiny, albeit in relatively small doses.
 As the Minister who steered the Greater London Authority Bill through Committee, I found our proceedings refreshing. When winding up the Homes Bill in the previous Parliament, I observed that it was welcome to take a measure through Committee in weeks rather than months. I did not think that I would so soon be saying how welcome it is to take a Bill through Committee in days rather than weeks. I hope that the precedent will be followed many times in the months ahead. 
 Many important points have been raised, and many more, no doubt, will be made when the Bill reaches another place. The points have been serious, but the central purpose of the Bill, which received such broad support on Second Reading, has been endorsed, and still commands that support after the scrutiny that we have given it on Tuesday and today. 
 I thank you, Mr. Amess, for your effective chairmanship of the Committee, and Mrs. Adams, who chaired proceedings on Tuesday. I thank all members of the Committee, the officials who have provided support, the Clerk, Hansard and the police.

Theresa May: Having heard the Minister say that he took the Greater London Authority Bill through the House, I am pleased that we have not had the same experience: the Government had to table 900 amendments in another place.

Nick Raynsford: More.

Theresa May: It was nearly 1,000 amendments. I was being generous to the Minister. His two technical amendments to the Bill are a record in the other direction for him. We are grateful for that.
 We have had a constructive debate, because there is a broad consensus on the Bill's principles and aims. We therefore tabled amendments with the intention of being constructive and improving the Bill, not opposing its aims. 
 I associate myself with the thanks that the Minister offered to the Clerk, other officers of the House and all those who have ministered to us in our proceedings, although they have been short. I offer my thanks to Mrs. Adams and to you, Mr. Amess, for your chairmanship of the Committee, short though that has been. I especially thank my hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate: the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who has had to leave, and my hon. Friends the Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for South Cambridgeshire, who have teased out some interesting points. 
 I end by sending, as I am sure do all members of the Committee, very best wishes to the mother of the hon. Member for North Cornwall for her 100th birthday next week.

Paul Tyler: I thank the hon. Lady for that last remark. I endorse and repeat the thanks that have been offered to the team that has made this a happy Committee. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle that not every Committee is as amicable, constructive and consensual, but that she has had the best of baptisms.
 I endorse the Minister's comments on programme motions. They are not always applicable, but it is important for this place to make better use of our time, not least because that enables Opposition parties to concentrate on the issues that most concern them rather than being at the mercy of the Government, with their large majority, pushing through an imposed guillotine. That applies both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I am glad that, in this case, it worked so well. 
 Throughout our proceedings, we have rightly laid emphasis on outcomes. The process is not important, but achievement is, and that applies to all parties although we go about it in different ways. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I fear that that is not always the case with legislation, but I hope that the Minister and the Under-Secretary are right to be optimistic. I note that the Under-Secretary has a distinguished academic role in developing constitutional procedures in a—dare I use the word—federal way, and he has considered the issue in the context of other countries. I hope that in the near future he will be able to persuade his colleagues to allow him to develop new bodies to which the measure will apply—not least, of course, a regional assembly for Cornwall.

David Amess: I thank all those who have spoken for their kind and generous remarks. It has been a pleasure partly to preside over these historic and important proceedings. I join with others in thanking all those who have assisted in our work. Most of all I should like to thank the Clerk, without whose wisdom the proceedings would have been the poorer.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.